Could singularities be just rips in the space-time fabric?

[Mlesnita Daniel]

First off, this is just an assumption. My knowledge of the field is extremely limited and I beg you to come and correct my mistakes, so I can learn.

So, I guess we all know how that space-time fabric is bended by gravity. When a star dies, all of the atoms are brought extremely close together, only the forces of repulsion, keeps the "star"(for example a white-dwarf) with some kind of structural integrity. In a neutron star, all of the atoms are affected so much by gravity's force, that only the repulsion by the neutrons keep it's integrity(i forgot what happens to the the electrons and protons, sorry).

Now, if a star is big enough, when it dies nothing can stop the gravity that wants to collect every piece of matter in a single dot. Could this dot(singularity) be just so dense(many say that it is infinite) that the space-time fabric itself could break? Nature does not use infinities. So how can all that matter, all those items be in just one single spot without. let's say. breaking the fabric and going to another dimension or another scenario like this (I know how it sounds, but I'm curious)?

Or does this imply quantum effects that I have low to zero knowledge of and I will have to delete this post?

(English is not my first language, as you can see)

Thank you!

 

[mathman]

Your scenario describes the formation of a black hole. Once it is formed, the current theories of physics (quantum theory and general relativity) come into collision, so no one knows what really happens. The singularity you described is the result of general relativity without considering quantum theory..

 

[phinds]

So, I guess we all know how that space-time fabric is bended by gravity.

Uh, no, what we all actually know is that space-time is not a "fabric" at all. That's an erroneous pop-science metaphor that does not belong in discussions of actual science despite the fact that it is so wide-spread.

Also, "singularity" is not a real thing, it is a word that is used as a place-holder for the longer phrase "the place were the math model breaks down and gives un-physical results and we don't know WHAT is/was going on there".

Other than that, see mathman's reply.

 

[Drakkith]

So how can all that matter, all those items be in just one single spot without. let's say. breaking the fabric and going to another dimension or another scenario like this (I know how it sounds, but I'm curious)?

It probably can't all be in one spot. Our understanding of physics at the immense densities and energy scales found near where singularities are predicted to form is sorely lacking. The singularity itself is very likely an artifact of our incomplete knowledge and probably doesn't exist.

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

Your scenario describes the formation of a black hole.

yeah, I forgot to refer to it as a black hole, sorry.

The singularity you described is the result of general relativity without considering quantum theory..

I think this is what I tried to do. Because, as I mentioned before, I have low to 0 knowledge of quantum effects, I tried to make sense with the little that I knew.

Uh, no, what we all actually know is that space-time is not a "fabric" at all. That's an erroneous pop-science metaphor that does not belong in discussions of actual science despite the fact that it is so wide-spread.

really? It seems that I really have to dig more into it. I mean, it seemed so reasonable, taking into account that most of the documentaries use that term. Maybe they tried to simplify it for the average viewer? I will have to find another way to understand some gravity and time stuff then.

Also, "singularity" is not a real thing, it is a word that is used as a place-holder for the longer phrase "the place were the math model breaks down and gives un-physical results and we don't know WHAT is/was going on there".

It probably can't all be in one spot. Our understanding of physics at the immense densities and energy scales found near where singularities are predicted to form is sorely lacking. The singularity itself is very likely an artifact of our incomplete knowledge and probably doesn't exist.

I suppose this is one of the reasons that make black holes so interesting?

Thank you all for correcting my mistakes. I really appreciate that you had the patience to answer to me. I had some incorrect understandings for quite a long time. :)

 

[phinds]

really? It seems that I really have to dig more into it. I mean, it seemed so reasonable, taking into account that most of the documentaries use that term. Maybe they tried to simplify it for the average viewer?

Pop-science presentations are entertainment, NOT science. They want things to be easy to understand even if that means they have to present things in ways that are totally incorrect.

 

[Grinkle]

I will have to find another way to understand some gravity and time stuff then.

One B level person to another ...

I think GR only goes as far as saying gravity affects the path that light follows, and then defining a geometry to describe the path that light follows in the presence of gravity. There is no definition of something called a fabric or prediction that some physically observable thing like a fabric might be found as far as I know in GR.

The pop-sci fabric statements (I think) comes from drawing lots of lines that light may follow when near a massive object and the image of all these lines is called a fabric - but as far as I know there is nothing there to constitute an actual fabric, its just a description for lots of light paths being drawn in a nice fabric-like manner.

 

[m4r35n357]

The pop-sci fabric statements (I think) comes from drawing lots of lines that light may follow when near a massive object and the image of all these lines is called a fabric - but as far as I know there is nothing there to constitute an actual fabric, its just a description for lots of light paths being drawn in a nice fabric-like manner.

That, and Star Trek ;)

 

[phinds]

As I recall, Einstein himself once used the term "fabric" in this context (and that's how it got started) but it was not something he would likely have done in a discussion with serious physicists.

 

[zuz]

As everyone here has said, no one really knows what is going on at the singularity. So, yes, It may rip the "fabric" of space and enter another dimension or even another universe. There are several theories on this subject. I also have a very limited knowledge on this but am curious.

 

[phinds]

As everyone here has said, no one really knows what is going on at the singularity. So, yes, It may rip the "fabric" of space and enter another dimension or even another universe. There are several theories on this subject. I also have a very limited knowledge on this but am curious.

No, it cannot enter another dimension or another universe, even if such should exist, because that would contradict the fact that the gravity from the mass clearly doesn't go away. You should read less pop-science and more actual science.

 

[zuz]

No need to be rude

 

[phinds]

No need to be rude

In what way do you feel I was being rude? It was not my intent. You made statements based on pop-science and I pointed it out, that's all. You'll find that that happens a lot on this forum.

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

You should read less pop-science and more actual science.

Can you give me some sources please? :)

My actual science resources are N.A.S.A.'s site (their youtube channels, and JPL's too) and Anton Petrov. A guy that makes videos about astronomy "news" and post the source of the research in the comments. Do you know any site or anything like this where I can find "astronomy news"? Not even astronomy, science in general, but with the sources to the research involved in it.

 

[phinds]

Can you give me some sources please? :)

My actual science resources are N.A.S.A.'s site (their youtube channels, and JPL's too) and Anton Petrov. A guy that makes videos about astronomy "news" and post the source of the research in the comments. Do you know any site or anything like this where I can find "astronomy news"? Not even astronomy, science in general, but with the sources to the research involved in it.

I can't really help you on that since I don't follow science news anywhere but here but I'm sure others will. I got most of my information initially from pop-science presentations (LOTS of them) and then came here and learned that pretty much everything I "knew" was wrong. Fortunately for me, I did not make the mistake of answering questions or making statements here based on my pop-science knowledge but just spent a couple of years reading the answers here to others' questions, plus a few books that had been recommended here.

 

[happyhacker]

I find it interesting the references to Pop-Science (Sci-Fi) and Real Science. If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated. A lot of Sci-Fi is written by authors who have or have had careers in related fields so there must be some acceptance or actual formal terminology. Anyone?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated.

There is not. (Who would it be?) If there were, we could start with "relativistic mass", coined in 1906, shown to be useless in 1908, and here we are 111 years later and it's still in popularizations.

 

[PeroK]

I find it interesting the references to Pop-Science (Sci-Fi) and Real Science. If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated. A lot of Sci-Fi is written by authors who have or have had careers in related fields so there must be some acceptance or actual formal terminology. Anyone?

What you'll find if you pick up an undergraduate or graduate textbook on GR is no mention of spacetime "fabric", except perhaps as a footnote. What you will find are references to the stress-energy tensor. So:

Search online for "spacetime fabric" and you will find mostly popular science sources. Even if they are produced by NASA.

Search online for "stress-energy tensor" and you will find mostly real science sources. I.e. predominantly dealing with the academic subject, as studied at universities.

This purpose of this site is the "real" subject, where spacetime fabric has no useful meaning.

 

[happyhacker]

Interesting. Thanks. So the only 'public face' of the scientific community is the likes of news outlets, YouTube, and science websites which although some have scientists gone to journalism seem to prefer pop-science terms in their writings. So nothing is currently bridging the terminology gap. I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task. I did a quick search and came up with this. Never mind! Just curious. Over and Out.

 

[phinds]

I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task.

Why? Their job is to evaluate and present science papers, not discuss popular entertainment.

 

[happyhacker]

Why? Their job is to evaluate and present science papers, not discuss popular entertainment.

I never stated it was. Read my last reply!

 

[davenn]

I never stated it was. Read my last reply!

Ummm yes you did ...

I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task.

As phinds said, it isn't their task, they deal with evaluating REAL science

 

[rootone]

The idea of a singularity is similar to dividing by zero.
It means that whatever math you are applying to the situation is nonsense.
(or to be pedantic, it means that the result is undefinable).

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

The idea of a singularity is similar to dividing by zero.
It means that whatever math you are applying to the situation is nonsense.
(or to be pedantic, it means that the result is undefinable).

Oh, thanks. Pretty weird that I thought that as truth. I need to read more books and watch fewer documentaries. :)